Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timmins Square

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. SpinningSpark 19:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timmins Square[edit]

Timmins Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN 397,303 square ft, 70-store mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:GNG. Neither of the two references in the article are useful. One (http://www.timminspress.com/2013/01/15/urban-planet-fills-zellers-void) is self-published. The other (http://www.riocan.com/_bin/investor/property.cfm) is a broken link which gets you to a Cold Fusion error page. The riocan.com site itself is for a real estate investment trust, which I assume owns the mall (and would thus also be self-published). A google search failed to find any reliable independent sources which would establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my Delete !vote, based on Paul Erik's comment below. My battle cry in these mall debates has been "local isn't good enough, we need national coverage". Paul has provided a citation in a national paper. I've still got a strong gut feeling that this just isn't encyclopedic (as Epeefleche points out, all of the events covered by these papers were completely mundane), but given that Erik met my stated requirement, it would be disingenuous to continue to fly the delete flag. I can't quite bring myself to say keep, but I'm at least willing to stand down from an explicit delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Timmins Daily Press is not "self-published" — it's the main daily newspaper in the city, owned by a major Canadian newspaper chain, and is a perfectly reliable source for our purposes. Granted, by itself it's not really enough to get a local shopping mall qualified as notable in an international encyclopedia, but it's not a "self published" source. (You are correct about RioCan, though.) This is an article that may have made perfect sense by the wikistandards of 2006, when it was first created — but by the wikistandards that pertain in 2014, a shopping mall requires far more than "it exists" as a notability claim, and far more than one article in the local daily for sourcing. Delete unless a better array of sourcing, and more compelling proof of notability than a mere list of its anchor tenants, can be located. User:Paul Erik has made significant improvements to the sourcing (bravo), so I'm now comfortable flipping to a keep. Bearcat (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the correction on timminspress; I have struck that part of my comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just so the closer doesn't miss it (as it is in the midst of Bearcat's comment), I wanted to flag Bearcat's last sentence in his above comment to the closer. Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. FWIW, Timmins Daily Press appears to have a circulation of 6,000, and the city appears to have a population of 43,165. Epeefleche (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Editors haven't mentioned that Google books shows that this mall was mentioned in the 1981 book, "Directory of major malls, listing the most important ...".  As for riocan, [1] lists GLA and service area, [2] makes assertions about anchors, and [3] has a map and a list of the stores.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in a directory does not make you notable. Directories are the canonical example of an indiscriminate source. And www.timminssquare.com is self-published. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A company's own website does not constitute evidence of that company's notability, and neither does inclusion in a directory. Those things certainly provide verification that the company exists, but they do not prove that the company merits coverage in an encyclopedia, as they do not constitute substantive coverage in independent sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Riocan could have more technical material that would help Wikipedia readers; such as acreage and parking spaces, and their definition of anchors includes Sportchek, which the article lists as having a 14,000 sqft footprint.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Material was removed by the nominator from the article before and after the start of the AfD, [4], and [5].  Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the content in question was referenced at all, nor was it in any way evidence of notability. So Epeefleche did absolutely nothing wrong. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at the first sentence.
Before:
'''Timmins Square''' is one of the largest shopping centres in [[Northeastern Ontario]].
After:
'''Timmins Square''' is a shopping centre in [[Northeastern Ontario]].
http://www.timminssquare.com/home/index.ch2 states, "With over 390,000 square feet of retail space, it is the largest centre within a radius of 200 km or more..."
Do you agree that the material that was removed was sourced and indicates a form of notability?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, no, primary sources cannot demonstrate notability. And secondly, "one of the largest shopping malls in the region" is not a substantive claim of notability anyway — there are fewer than ten indoor shopping malls in the entire Northeastern Ontario region, and while I haven't found solid size stats for all of them at least three of those are larger than this one, and thus it ranks no better than fourth overall. And with that few shopping malls to actually compete with, even the smallest one would still technically be able to claim that it was "one of the largest" anyway. Doesn't sound like such a compelling notability claim anymore, does it? Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found to be more interesting the statement that this is the largest mall in a 200 km radius.  In the www.icsc.org scale [6], the GLA size of this mall falls just below "regional mall".  But when the nearest mall is more than 200 km away (and draws shoppers from 100 km away), on this parameter this mall is a "super-regional mall", which is the largest size listed.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can debate the significance of the material that was removed, but the point remains that sourced material was removed.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the diffs you pointed out included a single source at all. So no sourced material was removed — some unsourced material was, but there's a fairly big difference between sourced and unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs include the permalinks that include the source I specified.  The permalink in the left side of the diff is [7], and the permalink on the right side is [8].  Both permalinks contain the source I identified above, http://www.timminssquare.com/home/index.ch2 .  Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an almost identical case, with the phrase, "...is one of the largest shopping centres in the Greater Victoria Area."  But in this case, the editor added a Template:cn tag, [9].  Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent. As the AfD notice states: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked ... until the discussion is closed." Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You conspicuously fail to provide a diff to the RS-sourced statement. Or is that because what was deleted was a wholly-unsourced claim? And such wholly-unsourced claims are, of course, subject to immediate removal per wp:v.
I assume you're not trying to mislead your fellow editors. But please take care -- your above edits could have that unintended effect. Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The words "conspicuously", "mislead", and "unintended effects" are charged words.  These are your words.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have documented a case of removal of sourced content.  The fix is simple, stop removing content from articles that you claim, with a deletion nomination, to be worthless.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for your claim that I did not include a diff, the diff appears in the start of this section, above in the bolded Comment that begins this set of replies.  The post is dated 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC).  Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bot seems to know a Delete when it sees one. Excellent work by the bot. Nom defers. Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It's not the strongest, but in my view there is sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources. Certainly it's not among the most notable malls in Canada, and much of the sourcing I added is from the local city paper. But I've been selective; there are a very large number of hits when I search "Timmins Square" (more than 1500 results in my library's database) and much of it appears to be just passing mentions in articles that are about something run-of-the-mill such as an event at the mall or a crime or similar. The ones I've added I've tried to be careful about finding the significant coverage that supports the material as per the guidelines at WP:MALLS#Structure for such articles. Beyond the local coverage, there is a fair amount of coverage at the regional level in Northern Ontario Business magazine, including an article that links economic development in the region to expansions and tenant changes at Timmins Square. I found a little coverage at a national level, in the National Post. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed -- what you alluded to -- that half the refs are to the local paper which (as was mentioned some time ago way above in this thread) has a circulation of 6,000 (and the city appears to have a population of 43,165). Per wp:AUD, that doesn't appear to be of much weight; indeed no weight at all, both because the media is local, and because it is extraordinarily low-circulation.
Similarly, another 40% of the refs (4) are to a trade monthly that serves the business community and covers business news in Northern Ontario; it's not regional media, but actually has an audience that is a certain distinct community (the business community) within that part of the province.
That's 90% of the refs. The lone remaining National Post article, on page C3 of that day's paper -- I can't see it, so I can't see it providing "substantial coverage" within the meaning of GNG. But I can tell it's not a front page article. And not even a front page article of a business section. Oh ... and I know one other thing. That the article is about 8 malls. This is one of this. So divide by 8. Paul -- perhaps you can tell us how many sentences in that article are devoted solely to this mall? Seriously, you're arguing that because 1/8th of one article that passes AUD exists ... it is notable?
Epee, I'm with you on the business magazine being a niche audience, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that an article on page C3 can't be substantial coverage of something. Certainly, I would expect something on C3 to not be as important as something on C1, or A1 (not that these things mean much to me anymore, as I almost never even see the print edition of a newspaper these days) but I would hate to set a standard that says substantial coverage has to be on certain pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be substantial coverage. I simply can't tell one way or the other, however. And the fact that it is on page C3 prevents me from saying "it is on the cover page, so it looks like the article is signficant and substantial coverage of something, even if I can't see it. I can't make that assumption here. But to be clear -- when I said "I can't see it providing the substantial coverage necessary," the lead-in to that clause was that was because I can't see the article.
Added to that the fact that the article is about 8 malls (and this is only 1 of them) tends to dilute the significance of the ref by a factor of 8 (without knowing more). But perhaps we will be told that the article has a substantial number of sentences devoted to coverage of this one mall. Waiting to hear. For now, it's just 1/8th of the bare minimum we would need per wp:AUD, and lacks the necessary indicia of "substantial" coverage ... if this articles is what we come down to.Epeefleche (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An article topic does not have to be the sole subject of any given source, as long as there's a mix of sources and the article isn't relying solely on that one source. (For example, if a person wins a major award that gets them past WP:CREATIVE — e.g. a Grammy, a Juno or an Oscar — then one article in a reliable source which merely includes their name in a list of the winners is enough to start a keepable stub with. You still need additional coverage to support any content beyond the statement that they won the award, of course, but as long as the reference is a reliable one and properly supports the claim of notability, the fact that the source isn't exclusively about that person alone isn't a valid reason to delete the article.) Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearcat. For the purposes of meeting other "if you are this" notability criteria, such as "winner of major award" or "major league ballplayer," you are absolutely correct. But that's not how notability is being measured here. There is no "if you are this" non-GNG category of "mentioned, without even a single sentence devoted to it, in a national article, about 8 malls" (which even Paul agrees could be viewed as only 1/8th of such an article).
Here, in contrast, we are considering the topic under GNG and AUD. AUD knocks out the other limited-audience refs from satisfying GNG. And, in addition, AUD says we need at least one ref with a more appropriate larger audience. Which requirement -- if the national article were about this mall only -- the article might satisfy. It only gets us 1/8th of the way there, however. And we don't have 7 more similar articles. (btw, I looked and looked and could not find any other RS media covering the topic of the national article at all).
AUD says that: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." 5 refs in the article are to a paper with circulation of 6,000, and 4 are to a monthly paper w/25,000 readers (average daily readership is therefore under 1,000).[12] So ... attention in 1/8th of a national article is not the requisite attention.
To the same conclusion, see WP:CORPDEPTH. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered."
This accords with the GNG requirement: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail. We simply don't have that in the 1/8th of a national article that doesn't have even one sentence devoted to the mall. Epeefleche (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, for the record, does not have any arbitrary specific size cutoffs that we apply to a newspaper's circulation to decide whether it counts as a reliable source or not — and neither do we deprecate "niche" publications like business trade magazines. A daily newspaper published by a national media chain in fact does count as a valid reliable source — it's certainly not enough to demonstrate the wikisuitability of a topic whose notability is predominantly local in nature if it's the only source you can provide, but it is a legitimate source within a mix of multiple sources. So too the trade mag — if Northern Ontario Business were the article's only source, that wouldn't be enough by itself, but it is an acceptable source within a mix of sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And all the refs in the article relate to "happens in every small non-notable mall in the world" amazingly mundane stuff -- The mall opened, it expanded, it had certain anchor tenants, it was owned by ..., its owner is based in ... , it was renovated. I have trouble seeing any of that as substantial coverage that is indicia of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure and notability are two different things. Every non-notable mall .. if you were to write an article about it, would have the elements of "structure." If it were notable, though, there would be notable elements. Things like "the first mall in the Province," or "the largest mall in the Province," or "the highest-priced mall sale in the Province", or "the first/largest/highest-price sale in city X which is one of the largest cities in the country" ... In the U.S., for example, looking to notability criteria like that you would have hundreds of malls qualify - even with just that reference. But saying "I have a local paper with a circulation of 6,000 that said the mall was renovated" is amazingly mundane ... I would think, by contrast, a mall notable (in another sense, obviously) if no local paper ever reported anything on it. Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting all the above, re those refs that contain trivial coverage, please see WP:CORPDEPTH: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements .... [W]orks carrying merely trivial coverage ... [include]: ... brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, ... routine notices of the opening or closing of local ... shops, [or] ... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources...."Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul -- I've asked above, and you've edited this page since then, so perhaps I've missed it. Can you tell us how many sentences in that lone article are devoted solely to this mall? I'm focused on that because the article is about 8 malls. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Post article that I cited is about a major financial deal that involves eight Canadian malls. I completely agree with you, Epeefleche, that this one national news article is not sufficient to support the notability of this one mall. But I think that this source once it is considered in the context of the other sources and their depth, the coverage is enough for WP:GNG notability. (I suspect that you and I are going to end up having to agree to disagree about this broader question, just as we also disagree about the necessity of "first", "largest", "highest price" etc as being a requirement to keep such an article.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul -- Can you tell us how many sentences in that lone article are devoted solely to this mall? I'm focused on that because the article is about 8 malls, and this is only one of them. For all I know, the article may only devote two or three passing references to this particular mall. wp:AUD bears on this, as does wp:GNG ("Significant coverage"). I know you have a view of this source -- but since it is key to satisfying AUD and GNG, please allow the rest of us to evaluate it with more information than you've shared. I've already posed this simple request twice before. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, Epeefleche has asked you a very straightforward question several times, and you have failed to respond. I'm confused about this. You have found a citation which is not directly accessible by the other people in this conversation. Since you are the only one with direct access to this information, you really owe it the other participants to answer questions about it. I would appreciate if you would do so. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many "sentences"?! I wasn't intending to be indirect or evasive. "None", I suppose, is the answer..? The entire article is about the eight malls and the financial deal associated with them, as I said. Epeefleche characterizes this as "1/8th of one article", which is reasonable, even though I don't tend to count up sources in this kind of way. For whatever it's worth (a little, not much perhaps) while I was looking up that article I also found a few sentences about the mall in a Toronto Star article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on Paul Erik's comment above. I've gone back and forth on this, and gave Paul the benefit of the doubt when he said he found a reference in a national publication which establishes notability. But, based on his answer above (for which I thank him), I must conclude that the weight of the references found do not meet WP:N and WP:GNG. Since I don't have direct access to the article, I have to go on Paul's description of the contents. From that, I conclude that this article is not about this mall, but about a real estate deal which just happened to include this mall. That's insufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Paul and Bearcat. Article meets both WP:AUD and WP:GNG. The mall has received coverage in both regional and national media. There does not appear to be any basis for the "niche" media excuse to dismiss the regional coverage. The Financial Post (the business section of the National Post) is one of the country's main business news media outlets - they typically do not cover the sale of minor plazas and malls. While the Post article is on the real estate deal, it's the properties themselves which collectively made that deal worth covering in one of Canada's main business media outlets. WP:GNG quite explicitly states that the coverage must be "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - so the focus on the larger deal does not mean that WP:GNG has not been met (and the coverage certainly isn't trivial since the mall was the subject of the deal). I think WP:AUD and WP:GNG are being construed by some way too narrowly. As an aside, 6,000 sounds to me like a pretty healthy circulation for a newspaper these days in a town of approximately 45,000. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new article about neighborhood Mountjoy, Ontario (which currently redirects to Neighbourhoods in Timmins#Mountjoy).Perhaps this is a fair compromise between opposing factions. --PinkBull 19:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally a merge is not seen as a "fair compromise" for persons advocating keeping the article. I'm also not sure that we are "factions". If merged (and I am not advocating that solution), given the mall seems to serve a much larger area than just the neighbourhood, it makes a lot more sense that to merge it with the Timmins article, than to effectively rename this article as Mountjoy, Ontario.Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be just a rename as content from Neighbourhoods in Timmins#Mountjoy would also be merged into Mountjoy, Ontario. I don't oppose a merger into Timmins as a seperate section or merged into Timmins#Economy.--PinkBull 00:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that reliable sources associate this mall much with Mountjoy.  There is the name itself (Timmins), and the fact that it is the dominant mall in a 100 km radius.  IMO, appeasement is simply going to create more demands on the time of AfD volunteers, instead of moving to all of the editors being involved in finding sources.  I'm not opposed to a refocus, for example Cityscape of Timmins would have room for both the neighbourhoods and the 101 Mall.  I think that any such decisions should come from the content contributors, and not AfD specialists.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This initially looked like a case similar to Sumter Mall but without the local press to provide WP:GNG notability.  As such it would have been a case of WP:Systemic bias.  But thanks to Paul Erik showing how to use newspaper databases, we now know that not only is there a strong local press, the mall is regularly covered by a regional business magazine (for example, Timmins native runs campeau mall. (1988). Northern Ontario Business, 8(10), 44-C44. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/210496261 ), and attracts the attention of a real estate brokerage in Toronto with a national knowledge of "large dominant shopping centres." (National Post, May 19, 1999).  Here is a short article from the last English-language newspaper in Montreal: Campeau sells shopping centre. (1990, Apr 26). The Gazette Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/431945082 .  newspapers.com shows 5 hits in 1976, which is when the mall opened, if anyone can access that database.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timmins_Square&oldid=1071220760"